Forum Help

If you want to ask about changing your username, have login problems, have password problems or a technical issue please email forumteam@moneysavingexpert.com

Posting help:

If you want to ask why a word can't be typed, your signature's been changed, or a post has been deleted see the Forum Rules. If you don't find the answer you can ask forumteam@moneysavingexpert.com though due to volumes we can't guarantee replies.

Login to MSE Forum

Join the MSE Forum

Skimlinks adds tracking to some, primarily retailers' links, to show they come from this forum. For some retailers, instead of using Skimlinks to turn the link into a tracked link, we use affiliated links set up through other third parties. Then if it generates revenue from that, this site is paid. The links don't change the content, or what you see or track individual data ? but they do help fund this free forum. So we hope you choose to switch it on. See the full Skimlinks factsheet for more.

There is a lot in the media about pensioners struggling. But given they were the ones demanding higher and higher pay, going on strike every 5 minutes, opening the door to cheap foreign imports. Do they have a right to complain from their half a million pound houses when the young can't buy a house?

Which benefits people who already own a home. There's a reason that the Daily Mail and Express are obsessed with house prices, because they know their demographic. Obviously very little of the problems in any country are down to individual people of a particular generation, other than through the actions of the governments they elect. But that's not nothing. The only reason we still have the triple lock pension, for example, is because the government knows it would lose them enough votes to be a dangerous policy.

Governments choose to focus on policies that will be popular, and because of demographics, and also the shameful voting records of younger people (their own fault), this has been skewed in favour of older people for a long time. Governments know that they can screw over young people without consequence. And it doesn't have to be screwing over, just prioritising spending in a particular way.* If you had enough money to either offer free childcare or free nursing homes for the elderly, which one would you go for? For years, building affordable homes for young families has not been a priority because it hasn't been a vote winner. If you're already on the property ladder, high house prices are actually good for you.

I couldn't find the statistics for the UK, but in America, millennials are actually overtaking baby boomers in numbers, so we might see a shift in the near future. If only they'll actually get out and vote.

Pensions should not be at risk. Not all pensioners are rich. There are a lot of poor pensioners who can hardly manage on their money as it is. Not everyone had a good job or was promoted and life was often a struggle. I speak from personal experience. As I said in the previous post we paid in more than enough.

We own a small semi. Its our home which we live in and the three bedrooms are occupied. I don't care what house prices do, whether they go up or down. My husband and I talk constantly about the government not building houses. However, immigration contributes greatly to housing shortages.

*If I had the money I would split it down the middle between the two.

The forest would be very silent if no birds sang except for the birds that sang the best

No, I wouldn't vote for a government that promised to end the triple lock on pensions. The reason for this being there are a lot of very poor pensioners who have to choose between food and heat in the winter. It is also not our fault that the government has made mistakes and squandered what we paid in as I detailed in my previous post. It is also not our fault that the government brought in millions of migrants which has created the housing crisis.

As for voting for certain governments once they get into power there is not a lot of difference between them. The last Labour government was a total disaster. I always voted for Labour but never will again. I do not know of one government that did not mismanage and squander taxpayers money.

The forest would be very silent if no birds sang except for the birds that sang the best

It seems to have been forgotten that a huge number of people receiving a state pension are still paying taxes, on income received (including the state pension and other pensions) that is over the personal allowance limits, and Capital Gains Tax if shares or second properties are sold, and also almost every time they buy something, so they are still contributing to the national pot, not just drawing from it.

It seems to have been forgotten that a huge number of people receiving a state pension are still paying taxes, on income received (including the state pension and other pensions) that is over the personal allowance limits, and Capital Gains Tax if shares or second properties are sold, and also almost every time they buy something, so they are still contributing to the national pot, not just drawing from it.

No, I wouldn't vote for a government that promised to end the triple lock on pensions. The reason for this being there are a lot of very poor pensioners who have to choose between food and heat in the winter.

So do plenty of poor families. So why should one group have that income increased at government expense, while another group has it cut in the name of austerity?

In a thread full of people claiming that young people's problems are that they all want the latest iPhone or holiday abroad rather than willing to sacrifice to save a deposit for a house, where is the criticism of older people who want to continue to live in a 3 bedroom house but want the taxpayer to fund the rocketing costs of heating it in the winter?

It seems to have been forgotten that a huge number of people receiving a state pension are still paying taxes, on income received (including the state pension and other pensions) that is over the personal allowance limits, and Capital Gains Tax if shares or second properties are sold, and also almost every time they buy something, so they are still contributing to the national pot, not just drawing from it.

So you're saying that there are plenty of people who are still earning enough to be paying significant sums in tax, but are taking a pension because "I've paid into the system all my life" not because they are actually in need of it? Colour me unsympathetic of people rich enough to be paying taxes on the sale of second homes. We don't allow you to claim child benefit if your income is above a certain amount, so why should the state pension be any different? I'm sure we're all in favour of supporting poor pensioners with taxpayers' money. But why should taxes be subsidising rich pensioners? And if your answer is "because they've paid into the system" then presumably you're also in favour of a universal basic income. After all, I've paid into the system, so why shouldn't I be entitled to the same benefits as an unemployed person even though I don't actually need them? Either it's based on need, or it's universal. But a lot of people think it should be universal for pensioners, but based on need for everyone else.

So here's a question. Should a wealthy rich person be entitled to a state pension paid for out of general taxation, purely on the grounds that they've paid into the system? Or should it be means tested? In short, should the Rolling Stones be entitled to a state pension?

Our generation who lived through the war had hoped rationing would end after the war, but then bread rationing as well was introduced in 1946, as the establishment spent the loans from America to prop up their empire, rather than concentrate on food supplies to the people here in the immediate aftermath of the war.

Keynes, who negotiated the loan, argued that it "is primarily required to meet the political and military expenditure overseas"

They were so determined to hang onto their riches at the expense of the peoples of their empire and us, that they made rationing worse which eventually ended in 1954, after about 14 years of it.

Post war austerity doesn't seem to figure conversationally nowadays but plenty people bang on about baby boomers, but the poor suffered from the war here for a very long time afterwards.

Peel back your baby's eyelid to find no nationality or religious identity mark there. Peer at your baby's eyes for them to reflect back just people-throw away your flags and religious symbols...

So you're saying that there are plenty of people who are still earning enough to be paying significant sums in tax, but are taking a pension because "I've paid into the system all my life" not because they are actually in need of it? Colour me unsympathetic of people rich enough to be paying taxes on the sale of second homes. We don't allow you to claim child benefit if your income is above a certain amount, so why should the state pension be any different? I'm sure we're all in favour of supporting poor pensioners with taxpayers' money. But why should taxes be subsidising rich pensioners? And if your answer is "because they've paid into the system" then presumably you're also in favour of a universal basic income. After all, I've paid into the system, so why shouldn't I be entitled to the same benefits as an unemployed person even though I don't actually need them? Either it's based on need, or it's universal. But a lot of people think it should be universal for pensioners, but based on need for everyone else.

So here's a question. Should a wealthy rich person be entitled to a state pension paid for out of general taxation, purely on the grounds that they've paid into the system? Or should it be means tested? In short, should the Rolling Stones be entitled to a state pension?

I think you will find that the Rolling Stones and similar groups famous in the 60's and now known as boomers, paid a whopping 95% of their income to the tax man. That's why they became tax exiles and the wealthy one's still do the same today.

On the other hand, poor pensioners should get all the help they need, along with young people who can claim all the help they need should they be unemployed. Not forgetting that the unemployed can find a job sooner or later but a pensioner can't.

I honestly don't think that the entrepreneurs and wealthy pop stars will automatically claim their State pensions. Which begs the question what does the government do with the unclaimed pension money.

I still pay tax because I have a private pension. That is because I decided not to rely on the state to provide sufficient funds for my retirement.

So here's a question. Should a wealthy rich person be entitled to a state pension paid for out of general taxation, purely on the grounds that they've paid into the system? Or should it be means tested? In short, should the Rolling Stones be entitled to a state pension?

The problem with deciding if someone is deserving of a state pension on the basis of other savings, either investments or other pension arrangements, is that it disincentivises saving.

I've a decent pot building up, but then again I started early and went without things like holidays to build it up. That's fine, that's my choice on how I allocate that money.

However, if because I chose not to spend it but save it, I'll be well piddled off in 15+ years time if I don't get the pension I was promised. I may as well have gone on a holiday and lived in a better house in a nicer area and got the government to fund my retirement.

PS I'm not a Rolling Stone, nor have I ever been a 40% tax payer. Sadly!

So do plenty of poor families. So why should one group have that income increased at government expense, while another group has it cut in the name of austerity?

In a thread full of people claiming that young people's problems are that they all want the latest iPhone or holiday abroad rather than willing to sacrifice to save a deposit for a house, where is the criticism of older people who want to continue to live in a 3 bedroom house but want the taxpayer to fund the rocketing costs of heating it in the winter?

Young people are able to go out to work to improve their lot, many pensioners are not. In fact someone like you would probably claim that pensioners take the jobs that young people should have. Or are you talking about people who live off benefits?

Pensioners are taxpayers as someone has pointed out and the State Pension is not a benefit, the recipients have worked and paid their contributions towards it. So if they want to use their pension to heat the 3 bedroom house that they have worked and paid for then that is up to them.

As for the business about the deposit for a house why should they not give up anything? When we bought our house we lived in my mother's council house in my bedroom for over a year to save for the deposit for a one bedroom maisonette. We didn't go out, we didn't have holidays, we didn't buy clothes or anything else, we didn't drink, we didn't smoke. The next house we bought was a run down two bed house. It took 5 years to do up and my husband did all the work himself. Once again we had no holidays, no outings and no new clothes.

Today's generation don't want a tiny flat, they want a nice house immediately. Its still possible to do what we did, live with the parents and save every penny. I know its not possible for all but neither was it in our day.

As for my mother having a council house, after we moved out she gave it up and moved into a tiny one bed flat.

The forest would be very silent if no birds sang except for the birds that sang the best

So you're saying that there are plenty of people who are still earning enough to be paying significant sums in tax, but are taking a pension because "I've paid into the system all my life" not because they are actually in need of it? Colour me unsympathetic of people rich enough to be paying taxes on the sale of second homes. We don't allow you to claim child benefit if your income is above a certain amount, so why should the state pension be any different? I'm sure we're all in favour of supporting poor pensioners with taxpayers' money. But why should taxes be subsidising rich pensioners? And if your answer is "because they've paid into the system" then presumably you're also in favour of a universal basic income. After all, I've paid into the system, so why shouldn't I be entitled to the same benefits as an unemployed person even though I don't actually need them? Either it's based on need, or it's universal. But a lot of people think it should be universal for pensioners, but based on need for everyone else.

So here's a question. Should a wealthy rich person be entitled to a state pension paid for out of general taxation, purely on the grounds that they've paid into the system? Or should it be means tested? In short, should the Rolling Stones be entitled to a state pension?

But people pay NI in order to receive a state pension; that's why it isn't means tested!
You know that with enough NI contributions paid, you will receive the basic state pension, which will keep the wolf from the door. If you then choose to forgo income while you are working in order to pay into private pension schemes, so as to have a bigger (and therefore taxable) income on retirement, what's wrong with that?

So you're saying that there are plenty of people who are still earning enough to be paying significant sums in tax, but are taking a pension because "I've paid into the system all my life" not because they are actually in need of it? Colour me unsympathetic of people rich enough to be paying taxes on the sale of second homes. We don't allow you to claim child benefit if your income is above a certain amount, so why should the state pension be any different? I'm sure we're all in favour of supporting poor pensioners with taxpayers' money. But why should taxes be subsidising rich pensioners? And if your answer is "because they've paid into the system" then presumably you're also in favour of a universal basic income. After all, I've paid into the system, so why shouldn't I be entitled to the same benefits as an unemployed person even though I don't actually need them? Either it's based on need, or it's universal. But a lot of people think it should be universal for pensioners, but based on need for everyone else.

So here's a question. Should a wealthy rich person be entitled to a state pension paid for out of general taxation, purely on the grounds that they've paid into the system? Or should it be means tested? In short, should the Rolling Stones be entitled to a state pension?

I have a private work pension of £320 per month. I still pay tax on that but I hardly think that I am a wealthy rich person. I certainly could not manage without the state pension. If it was up to you we would be living in a bedsit at best starving and freezing to death.

The majority of people are not as rich as the Rolling Stones. In fact the majority are not well off. However, if I was that rich then of course I would not bother to claim the state pension and I am sure a lot of them wouldn't.

Last edited by tesuhoha; 13-03-2017 at 2:55 PM.

The forest would be very silent if no birds sang except for the birds that sang the best

By the way I have never ever been on strike in my life and if I diidn't work I didn't eat or pay the mortgage

Not everyone worked in industry which was slowly throttled by both unions and employers the reason employers go abroad with their industries now is cheap unregulated labour.

40 odd years ago the UK was the 'Sick man of Europe' the lights started going out we had a three day working week and the dead lay unburied in the mortuaries. The UK was in a far worse position back then than today with 20% inflation and houses being repossessed all over.

Today youngsters work hard and I don't doubt their willingness to work its just far too often then want everything without waiting for it, and credit makes it far too easy to just get what you want.

By the way I have never ever been on strike in my life and if I diidn't work I didn't eat or pay the mortgage

Not everyone worked in industry which was slowly throttled by both unions and employers the reason employers go abroad with their industries now is cheap unregulated labour.

40 odd years ago the UK was the 'Sick man of Europe' the lights started going out we had a three day working week and the dead lay unburied in the mortuaries. The UK was in a far worse position back then than today with 20% inflation and houses being repossessed all over.

Today youngsters work hard and I don't doubt their willingness to work its just far too often then want everything without waiting for it, and credit makes it far too easy to just get what you want.

Everyone forgets that in the early 1980s we had a war and a recession. Norman Tebbutt was telling everyone to get on their bike and go and find work. In fact that is what we did. My husband was laid off from his factory job, and had to retrain as a plumber. When he finished the course he couldn't find a job. My wages weren't enough to pay the mortgage so we had to sell up and move to where there was work. We bought a cheaper house with a smaller mortgage because the interest rates on mortgages were 15% at that time. We had it easy? Yes right.

The forest would be very silent if no birds sang except for the birds that sang the best

So here's a question. Should a wealthy rich person be entitled to a state pension paid for out of general taxation, purely on the grounds that they've paid into the system? Or should it be means tested? In short, should the Rolling Stones be entitled to a state pension?Originally posted by I'm With Stupid

”

The State pension isn't paid automatically - it has to be claimed. I'd like to think that really wealthy people (despite the higher levels of taxation they have been subjected to) won't claim it, but I'm sure some people - ie, Cherie Blair - will claim it!

There is still a lot wrong with the country today, as there ever was, but its not the fault of today's pensioners. It the fault of self-seeking successive governments, greedy banks, wasteful spending and blue chip companies who avoid paying corporation tax.

Oh and Gordon Brown robbing the private pension pots which is still costing tax payers *insert amount here* every year.

I think paying into SP should be the same as everything else, health, education etc, for the common good, if you don't need it ie very wealthy then you don't get it. Some people barely use the NHS but no one goes to the GP just to get their money's worth or the childless spending time in school. I would be in favour of means testing pensioner benefits as a whole but the bar would have to be very high.

How this site works

We think it's important you understand the strengths and limitations of the site. We're a journalistic website and aim to provide the best MoneySaving guides, tips, tools and techniques, but can't guarantee to be perfect, so do note you use the information at your own risk and we can't accept liability if things go wrong.

This info does not constitute financial advice, always do your own research on top to ensure it's right for your specific circumstances and remember we focus on rates not service.

Do note, while we always aim to give you accurate product info at the point of publication, unfortunately price and terms of products and deals can always be changed by the provider afterwards, so double check first.

We don't as a general policy investigate the solvency of companies mentioned (how likely they are to go bust), but there is a risk any company can struggle and it's rarely made public until it's too late (see the Section 75 guide for protection tips).

We often link to other websites, but we can't be responsible for their content.

Always remember anyone can post on the MSE forums, so it can be very different from our opinion.

MoneySavingExpert.com is part of the MoneySupermarket Group, but is entirely editorially independent. Its stance of putting consumers first is protected and enshrined in the legally-binding MSE Editorial Code.